( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are filed by the accused in C. C. No. 141 of 1998 on the file of the Court of additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, anakapalli. Criminal Petition No. 920 of 2005 is filed against Criminal Revision petition No. 21 of 2003, which arises out of criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2386 of 2003 in C. C. No. 141 of 1998 (hereafter called, first petition ). Criminal Petition no. 921 of 2005 is filed against Criminal revision Petition No. 20 of 2003, which arises out of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition no. 2387 of 2003 in C. C. No. 141 of 1988 (hereafter called, second petition ). The petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the revisional Court.

( 2 ) FIRST respondent initiated criminal action against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1989 as amended by Act No. 55 of 2002. While the matter is being tried, first respondent filed first miscellaneous petition being criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2386 of 2003 under Section 91 of the Code of criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr. PC) to send for certain documents pertaining to insolvency Petition No. 26 of 1996 filed by d. W. 2 on the file of the Court II Additional senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Trial Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that D. W. 2 being not a party to the proceedings, it would not be desirable to call for the records in I. P. No. 26 of 1996 merely to prove that D. W. 2 is speaking falsehood. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21. 7. 2003, petitioner preferred Criminal revision Petition No. 21 of 2003 under section 397 (1) of Crpc. The learned X additional District and Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam (Fast Tract Court) at anakapalli, by order dated 6. 1. 2005 allowed the petition observing that D. W. 2 could not speak about the documents he filed unless he was shown them. Learned Sessions judge placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (1) ald (Crl.) 957 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 2335, in allowing the Criminal Revision Petition no. 21 of 2003. The de facto complainant also filed another petition before the learned Trial Magistrate being Criminal miscellaneous Petition No. 2387 of 2003 under Section 311 of Cr. PC to reopen the matter and permit him to examine Court witness and mark documents, which he sought to summon in other application referred to hereinabove. Again the Magistrate dismissed the same, but the learned Sessions judge by order dated 6. 1. 2005 made in criminal Revision Petition No. 20 of 2003 allowed the application. Indeed, the order is only a consequential order to the other order referred to hereinabove.

( 3 ) IN these petitions, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar reddy submits that if the documents pertaining to insolvency petitions are summoned from another Court, the same would cause prejudice to the accused and that the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in allowing the criminal revision , petitions filed by the complainant in C. C. No. l41 of 1998.

( 4 ) THESE petitions are filed under section 482 of Cr. PC to quash the orders of learned X Additional District and sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (Fast Tract court) at Anakapalli. The learned Sessions judge entertained the revision petitions under Section 397 of Crpc and ordered summoning of all the documents relating to insolvency petition and also to reopen the matter to mark those documents. Both the orders are in the nature of interlocutory nature and therefore embargo under section 397 (2) of Crpc comes into play. The question therefore is whether the high Court in exercise of its plenary powers under Section 482 of Cr. PC can ignore statutory bar and quash the orders of the Sessions Court even it suffers some infirmity?

( 5 ) THE power under Section 482 of cr. PC is intended to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure ends of justice. Nonetheless, if while exercisin